The moral outrage over our hypersexualized "porn" culture

ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The moral outrage over our hypersexualized "porn" culture

My Photos | hehe...my new shirt | kellym78

 

What is your first impression when viewing this picture? I'm sure many men and some women are probably sexually aroused. And the media is replete with such images of sexy young girls. Oh the horror!! Girls going to strip clubs, pole dancing, wearing Playboy bunny tight shirts and..........are watching porn!!!! Young women are being duped by this male driven sexual identity that forces women to dress slutty on Halloween and thus the term Slutoween. Want to know more? Then read this article:

http://helloladies.com/2010/07/guest-author-gail-dines/

Setting aside my snide sarcasm, I do concede that there are many elements of our sexy culture that are probably unhealthy for young girls and children in particular. If I had a 10 year old daughter, I likely would not want her to parade around in a thong and wear a t-shirt that says "future porn star". But like burgers and fries, alcohol and violent TV shows, a sexually free society is bound to have adverse effects. Is there a way to deal with such harms without violating freedom of speech or thought?

The picture of the busty sexy girl above with the provocative t-shirt is none other than co-founder of RRS, Kelly O'Connor. Yes an intelligent atheist made the choice of wearing a boob enhancing shirt with a statement that would make any anti-porn crusader cringe. I say it now. I defend Kelly O'Connor's fundamental right to freedom of expression. Now there is the distinct possibility that this image may make an impression on the mind of an immature teenage girl and influence her attire. And alcohol causes drunk driving and burgers cause coronary thrombosis.

Is there a solution to this cultural dilemma? Isn't it inherent in knowledge that Kelly and other women of similar attire are intellectuals? The only thing wrong with the sexy raunch culture in my mind is that it is hijacked by morons who wallow in a culture of mediocrity. If a young teen were to rather emulate the sexy intellectual women rather than Paris Hilton, would that not be liberation?

Rather than return to the burka, shouldn't the solution to the problems with a sexy culture be a better sexy culture ie. A culture wherein intellect is not divorced from sexual desire? With proper sex education, sexy intelligent women role models and without the repression of religion, wouldn't teens more likely attain the maturity to become immune to any adverse consequences of the so called raunch culture?

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 There is very little in

 There is very little in common between boobs, dicks, porn, etc. and intellect.  The t-shirt does express a simple response of the fist signal system that is to attract more males and get more homo sapiences. And some religions are relatively good in birth control implicitly assuming that if there were no religion, all we would be a herd of sluts and rapists. 

 

I was recently talking to a male (about 25yo) who told me that w/o christianinty there would be no moral.  ...  how boring.... I pointed out to him, that well, there are several countries including UK and Sweden where there are less than 50% who are somehow religious, and still those countries are doing quite well.  His reply.... Sweden hmm they have prostitution!!!  Well, 1 minute with google.com helped us find out that prostitution in Sweden was LEGALLY forbidden 11 years ago.

 

Ok... moral... my first signal system tells me I would like religions die all together, and all religious people go straight to they personal haven ... a mass.    but my second signal system tells me to burn them slowly ... alive.... for eternity ....

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Really? So wearing a tank

Really? So wearing a tank top and push up bra that says "Got Dick?" is liberating an empowering and something all women should strive for?

 

I'm sorry, but if these women had the intellect they wouldn't be trying to draw attention towards towards cleavage and legs. They use sexuality to make up for things they don't have.

 

 

As for having raunchy culture without having the negative consequences such as the degration of women. I'm sorry but that's not possible. The negative consequences are pretty much built in to the raunchy culture and you can't seperate them. You can't have a rauncy culture of sexual images without degrading women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Really?

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Really? So wearing a tank top and push up bra that says "Got Dick?" is liberating an empowering and something all women should strive for?

If you have been told not to do it in the past, then it is liberating. If it gives you influence over other people, then it is empowering. Of course it is not something all women should strive for, and I'm fairly certain that no one has claimed it is.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'm sorry, but if these women had the intellect they wouldn't be trying to draw attention towards towards cleavage and legs. They use sexuality to make up for things they don't have.

 

I honestly can't tell if this is a statement intended to support or oppose the behavior you are describing.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As for having raunchy culture without having the negative consequences such as the degration of women. I'm sorry but that's not possible. The negative consequences are pretty much built in to the raunchy culture and you can't seperate them. You can't have a rauncy culture of sexual images without degrading women.

 

The OP acknowledges that this behavior has negative consequences yet still maintains that it should be allowed. This is a statement of some negative consequences of a raunchy culture, but doesn't say whether or not it should be allowed. I'm not sure what message you are trying to convey.

 

 

 

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
  I think the shirt is

  I think the shirt is funny.

Raunchy?  Yeah, well, so what?  Offensive?  Probably to some.  So what?

When she is 60, it will be even funnier.  But maybe not as sexy.  So what?

After all, look at what happened to my generation.  We all ran around half naked and screwed anything and drank too much and some of us doped too much and then we had families of our own.  I have just about choked a couple of times when someone I knew screwed around and smoked dope and such when they were young, and then they lied like rugs to their children in front of me.  "I was boring when I was young.  Just ask my friend, here, CJ."  WTF?

So, it will happen to a lot of them this time around as well.  They will quit horsing around and then deny any of it happened.  Either that, or they will wear "got dick?" or "fly united" t-shirts when they are 80 and embarrass the hell out of their own children.  I don't think the world will come to an end over it.

As for role models.  "Clothes do not make the man (or woman)."  Then you go out for a high paying corporate job and you have to cover the tats with makeup.  I think kids today are pretty savvy and they realize personal statements are ----- personal.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hypersexualised is a word that really only

 

applies to the brains of boys between the ages of about 12 or 13 and 18. Applied in this context it's a media label. I guess the endless smut references just indicate this sex stuff is no longer socially taboo. Personally, it doesn't much work for me. Music that is essentially porn, products draped with women, etc. I think it's a cycle and we'll go back to a less sleazy culture in the future.

I dunno. As a guy you like the girl thing and it's difficult to see too much of something you love but I think we've gone too far, personally. I don't know any girls who want to be identified with rank sleaze. Women with man-sized sexualities (oh, we fall at your feet and worship thee) are generally more mature about sensuality than boys are. Guys are generally hopeless. We're all still trying to score a fast root before a sabretooth cat rips our heads off down at the waterhole or Mr Big knocks us on the head with his marae.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Whatthedeuce wrote:If you

Whatthedeuce wrote:

If you have been told not to do it in the past, then it is liberating. If it gives you influence over other people, then it is empowering. 

 

  Exactly.  Like when in the past other people told Jeffrey Dahmer he couldn't kill people, have sex with their corpses, and store their body parts in his apartment.  But he did it anyway.   It gave him influence over other people and it was totally empowering !!!  

   I don't think he personally bothered with the witty T-shirt approach.  Too lame, probably.

 

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

 There is very little in common between boobs, dicks, porn, etc. and intellect.  The t-shirt does express a simple response of the fist signal system that is to attract more males and get more homo sapiences. And some religions are relatively good in birth control implicitly assuming that if there were no religion, all we would be a herd of sluts and rapists. 

 

I was recently talking to a male (about 25yo) who told me that w/o christianinty there would be no moral.  ...  how boring.... I pointed out to him, that well, there are several countries including UK and Sweden where there are less than 50% who are somehow religious, and still those countries are doing quite well.  His reply.... Sweden hmm they have prostitution!!!  Well, 1 minute with google.com helped us find out that prostitution in Sweden was LEGALLY forbidden 11 years ago.

 

Ok... moral... my first signal system tells me I would like religions die all together, and all religious people go straight to they personal haven ... a mass.    but my second signal system tells me to burn them slowly ... alive.... for eternity ....

3rd signal: human-animals are disgusting; they want free food, housing, medicine, and so forth -but are not willing to labor for their means of living! Exterminate the irrational vermin and place in their stead a more... enlightened, and efficient species in their wake. I wish to be a part of a different species than homo sapiens sapiens.

(RE:X's post about socializing [economically] the rest of the world before the rest of humanity becomes "feral animals". Alas, it's good to know that the EU is nothing more than a socialist scam)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Whatthedeuce wrote:

If you have been told not to do it in the past, then it is liberating. If it gives you influence over other people, then it is empowering. 

 

  Exactly.  Like when in the past other people told Jeffrey Dahmer he couldn't kill people, have sex with their corpses, and store their body parts in his apartment.  But he did it anyway.   It gave him influence over other people and it was totally empowering !!!  

   I don't think he personally bothered with the witty T-shirt approach.  Too lame, probably.

Human-animals are disgusting...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Somehow this thread made me

Somehow this thread made me think of Rhonda Shear, I don't know.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Whatthedeuce wrote:

If you have been told not to do it in the past, then it is liberating. If it gives you influence over other people, then it is empowering. 

 

  Exactly.  Like when in the past other people told Jeffrey Dahmer he couldn't kill people, have sex with their corpses, and store their body parts in his apartment.  But he did it anyway.   It gave him influence over other people and it was totally empowering !!!  

   I don't think he personally bothered with the witty T-shirt approach.  Too lame, probably.

 

 

"I ate Billy Bob and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Somehow this

robj101 wrote:

Somehow this thread made me think of Rhonda Shear, I don't know.

Must be the Ouija........

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ProzacDeathWish

cj wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Whatthedeuce wrote:

If you have been told not to do it in the past, then it is liberating. If it gives you influence over other people, then it is empowering. 

 

  Exactly.  Like when in the past other people told Jeffrey Dahmer he couldn't kill people, have sex with their corpses, and store their body parts in his apartment.  But he did it anyway.   It gave him influence over other people and it was totally empowering !!!  

   I don't think he personally bothered with the witty T-shirt approach.  Too lame, probably.

 

 

"I ate Billy Bob and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

Must be one of those wet t-shirt contest things...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:robj101

Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Somehow this thread made me think of Rhonda Shear, I don't know.

Must be the Ouija........

Good looking, intelligent... quite the opposite.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Here is me & my wife at a

Here is me & my wife at a Lifestyles Party in vegas...It drives me insane when people confuse "Morality" with Sexuality... Like the Manner and frequency in which we conjugate...and our Libertine lifestyle somehow make us immoral Pariahs...But if we were more like the Religion inspired, sexually repressive Vanillas who cheat on one another emotionally every day... yet maintain the pretense of monogamy... we'd be more accepted by society... We are so freaking hung up about sex in this country its frightening...

Here's a little fun fact for those who believe that because a woman exhibits her sexuality freely that she is somehow Cheapening herself... The Moral double standard in this country, although better than the middle east...still has a long wat to go... Like Kelly, Not only does my Bride have enormous, surgically enhanced mamalian protruberences which she enjoys showing off now and again... They are both also Brilliant... My wife is the CEO of her firm, unanimously voted in by the board of directors... and she is on pace to bring her company Public in less than 3 years, and she's as generous and sweet and anyone else who covers themselves up and remains chaste (probably nicer, actually)... She manages our money like Suzy ormond... She Cooks Like Rachel Ray ...and she Fucks like Jenna Jameson... we make no apologies for who we are, or what we do... and if anyone is offended that we travel the country...meet new and intersting people, and have consentual sex with them... well... they can go Fuck themselves...

 

 


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Are we seriously going to do this dance again Captain?

Captain wrote:
Really? So wearing a tank top and push up bra that says "Got Dick?" is liberating an empowering and something all women should strive for?

For crying out loud Captain, I'm getting really tired of telling you this; No, no one is trying to make it mandatory for all women to dress in revealing clothes, nor is anyone trying to suggest that women who don't are not as strong or what have you as women who do. What people are trying to do is get prudes like you to realize that people are different and have different tastes, and that how someone dresses isn't really a good way to judge their personality or intellect.

I would like to point something out to you Captain; so far, you are the only one trying to pronounce a universal declaration of how a person should dress, and you are the only one trying to define a person solely on the way they dress.

Funny, that.

Captain wrote:
I'm sorry, but if these women had the intellect they wouldn't be trying to draw attention towards towards cleavage and legs. They use sexuality to make up for things they don't have.

Ah Wonderful! I'll assume that you not only have a universal and objective definition of what a women who 'had the intellect' would want to do and wear, but also have the statistical evidence to not back up this law, but also to only suggest that whenever a woman so much as slightly deviates from this established universal and all encompassing rule of fashion that this proves that they are somehow lacking in mental capacity.

I look forward to hearing this universal rule of fashion, as well as the statistical evidence to prove it and the effects of deviation from it.

I'll wait.

Captain wrote:
As for having raunchy culture without having the negative consequences such as the degration of women. I'm sorry but that's not possible. The negative consequences are pretty much built in to the raunchy culture and you can't seperate them. You can't have a rauncy culture of sexual images without degrading women.

Again, I look forward to the mountains of statistical evidence I'm sure you have to back up this absolute proclamation of impossibility. After all, you obviously interact with this 'rauncy culture of sexual images' enough to absolutely know the effects of it on the psyche of the women involved in it, ignoring that your comment implies that degredation of men cannot happen in such a 'rancy culture'.

And just for good measure; I, in a possibly not safe for work way, Prove You Wrong, Again.
 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 According to Pineapple and

 

According to Pineapple and others of similar ilk, it would be wrong for the woman in this picture to wear a string bikini or any other revealing attire outside the workplace. That somehow wearing those sort of clothes will degrade and objectify herself. That she should not have the freedom to choose what she wants to wear. If she wears a thong she no longer is worthy of calling herself a scientist.

So why indeed do women like to wear sexy clothes or do raunchy acts? Could it be that they may like being looked at and desired? Even among prudes who confine sexuality within a "loving and caring" relationship would have to admit that at some point the clothes do come off and each has to try and make the other horny in order to get laid. Yes even among the prudes, a certain amount of objectification has to take place ie. during foreplay.

Even the most staunch anti-porn feminist is very likely to masturbate to erotic mental imagery. Isn't that form of sexual fantasy also about objectification? I'd like to see if they would self-flagellate themselves after commiting such sexual heresy.

It seems to me that those who are anti-raunch are not truly concerned about the welfare of women. Indeed, they are simply clinging to unrealistic value systems which they impose on others but not on themselves ie. everyone must follow the rule except me. And it is for this reason that women are always trying to break out of the box, even the one created by feminists.

Now, none of this disputes the claim that the current raunch culture has adverse consequences on women. And the solution should be a better raunch culture.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Importantly

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Really? So wearing a tank top and push up bra that says "Got Dick?" is liberating an empowering and something all women should strive for?

 

I'm sorry, but if these women had the intellect they wouldn't be trying to draw attention towards towards cleavage and legs. They use sexuality to make up for things they don't have.

As for having raunchy culture without having the negative consequences such as the degration of women. I'm sorry but that's not possible. The negative consequences are pretty much built in to the raunchy culture and you can't seperate them. You can't have a rauncy culture of sexual images without degrading women.

 

The Captain is a woman and most of us are not. This builds in a cognitive bias on our side we can't avoid. Personally, I'm not sure all imagery of naked women is degrading. I rather like my natural nudes and natural poses and so on. 

One thing I would like feedback about is what we think is driving this raunch culture. Is it men? Women? The media? Advertising? Click-governed Internet content? All the above? Other things?

I grew up in a different environment to this one and I do wonder how we got to this point from the more reserved culture of the 70s and 80s. Women are socially more powerful now than ever before so what's the story?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:  What is

ragdish wrote:

 

 

What is your first impression when viewing this picture? Is there a solution to this cultural dilemma? Isn't it inherent in knowledge that Kelly and other women of similar attire are intellectuals? The only thing wrong with the sexy raunch culture in my mind is that it is hijacked by morons who wallow in a culture of mediocrity. If a young teen were to rather emulate the sexy intellectual women rather than Paris Hilton, would that not be liberation?

I think there needs to be multiple cultures within the same society. People make different choices(or nature does it for them) about their sexuality. Some are gay, monogamous, asexual, etc... Why can't we all respect each others choices? Why can't we set up boundaries so one person isn't pushing their values into the face of others in public?

One of the problems that atheism has is that religion has hijacked sexual monogamy and asexuality. If people are not attracted to a highly sexualized life and prefer monogamy or no sex, they feel religion is the only place that welcomes them. So they people force themselves to believe all the nutty things in the bible and koran just to be with their own kind.

One thing that bothers me is using sex to advertise when they're not actually selling sex. They put up a bill board of some hot twins next to a bottle of crappy beer. I don't get to have sex with these women, I only get to drink the piss-water beer. Usually the worse the product, they more they need to use sex to sell it. It's a kind of bait and swithch that is illegal for other commodities. I think this needs to be illegal while all other forms of sexuality done in private should be legal.

ragdish wrote:

Rather than return to the burka, shouldn't the solution to the problems with a sexy culture be a better sexy culture ie. A culture wherein intellect is not divorced from sexual desire? With proper sex education, sexy intelligent women role models and without the repression of religion, wouldn't teens more likely attain the maturity to become immune to any adverse consequences of the so called raunch culture?

 

Yes. But who is the judge of what is raunchy? Some people like the raunchy lifestyle, so like the highly repressed lifestyle. Can't their be room for both? Will we have a society where hookers walk the streets next to women in Burkas? The problem seems to be how to behave in public.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 It should be up to the

 It should be up to the individual.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I'm

Atheistextremist wrote:

I'm sorry, but if these women had the intellect they wouldn't be trying to draw attention towards towards cleavage and legs. They use sexuality to make up for things they don't have.

As for having raunchy culture without having the negative consequences such as the degration of women. I'm sorry but that's not possible. The negative consequences are pretty much built in to the raunchy culture and you can't seperate them. You can't have a rauncy culture of sexual images without degrading women.

Aren't women that use their intellect using this to make up for a lack of sexuality? People don't necessary give you what you want just because you're smart. You have to give people what they want. Why is intellect superior to sexuality?

Why isn't degrading in the 'eye of the beholder?' Some would say sexuality puts women up on a pedestal. Porn stars and models are pretty popular. It gives some women an advantage that no male possesses.

What about women that strip or get a sugar daddy to get money to get through college? Is this degrading?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Kapkao

robj101 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Somehow this thread made me think of Rhonda Shear, I don't know.

Must be the Ouija........

Good looking, intelligent... quite the opposite.

I'm going to have to disagree with your trailer trash tastes in women..

NO!

(Cut me some slack; It was the only relevant GIF I was able to find...)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:Captain

Sinphanius wrote:

Captain wrote:
Really? So wearing a tank top and push up bra that says "Got Dick?" is liberating an empowering and something all women should strive for?

For crying out loud Captain, I'm getting really tired of telling you this; No, no one is trying to make it mandatory for all women to dress in revealing clothes, nor is anyone trying to suggest that women who don't are not as strong or what have you as women who do. What people are trying to do is get prudes like you to realize that people are different and have different tastes,

Riiigght... ...another defender of (cultural) tolerance takes the stand. How European...

So because she is the sole voice of dissent in this thread, she's automatically a prude, and all the guys here aren't ABOUT to pause and let it slide. Color me surprised.

Quote:
and that how someone dresses isn't really a good way to judge their personality or intellect.

I wasn't aware this was about dress code... I was under the impression it was more about public conduct and women objectifying themselves in public just so someone of the opposite sex might notice them... they're THAT desperate?

I guess it's a BBW thing. (Mind you, I've never cared for skinny women with fake tits, personally... but shit! That shirt might as well have said "got anal VD"?)

Quote:
Ah Wonderful! I'll assume that you not only have a universal and objective definition of what a women who 'had the intellect' would want to do and wear, but also have the statistical evidence to not back up this law, but also to only suggest that whenever a woman so much as slightly deviates from this established universal and all encompassing rule of fashion that this proves that they are somehow lacking in mental capacity.

I look forward to hearing this universal rule of fashion, as well as the statistical evidence to prove it and the effects of deviation from it.I'll wait.

Counter-supposition:Culture is easily graphed, measured, and defined along the lines of "universal rule(s)"? Riiiggghhhttt!

It must suck for someone to disagree with you and other individuals at RRS...

Quote:
And just for good measure; I, in a possibly not safe for work way, Prove You Wrong, Again.

What do those 4 urls prove?

So... basically all you have is a bunch of name-calling, finger-pointing, and arm-flailing because... someone disagrees with you about the whole "cultural tolerance" quackery that has engulfed political left.

Again, I find it deeply amusing that others wish to single Pineapple/Allison out and ad hom her to oblivion because... *gulp*

she's the sole voice of dissent?!

At least Rich managed to inject some reason into this thread... I'd congratulate him but then... that almost appears to be an innate talent of his.

 edit; "with you", even.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
whatthedeuce wrote: If you

whatthedeuce wrote:

 

If you have been told not to do it in the past, then it is liberating. If it gives you influence over other people, then it is empowering. Of course it is not something all women should strive for, and I'm fairly certain that no one has claimed it is.

 

 

 

How is it empowering and liberating?

 

I was also told not to steal would doing that be liberating?

 

 

whatthedeuce wrote:

The OP acknowledges that this behavior has negative consequences yet still maintains that it should be allowed. This is a statement of some negative consequences of a raunchy culture, but doesn't say whether or not it should be allowed. I'm not sure what message you are trying to convey.

 

 

 

The OP wonders if we can seperate the negative consequences from the raunchy culture. We can't.

 

 

Quote:

Ah Wonderful! I'll assume that you not only have a universal and objective definition of what a women who 'had the intellect' would want to do and wear, but also have the statistical evidence to not back up this law, but also to only suggest that whenever a woman so much as slightly deviates from this established universal and all encompassing rule of fashion that this proves that they are somehow lacking in mental capacity.

I look forward to hearing this universal rule of fashion, as well as the statistical evidence to prove it and the effects of deviation from it.I'll wait.

 

Have you ever seen interviews with Victoria Secret models? Or any other airheads who seem to make money by looking seductively. But allow me to prove myself right.

 

Quote:

ignoring that your comment implies that degredation of men cannot happen in such a 'rancy culture'.

 

Of course men can be degraded and I am against that too, but degration of women is much much more common.

 

 

For the record, a woman can be intelligent etc.. and still degrade herself.

 

I was just observing that usually those who resort to sexual provoction tend to lack in other departments.

 

 

ragdish wrote:

 

According to Pineapple and others of similar ilk, it would be wrong for the woman in this picture to wear a string bikini or any other revealing attire outside the workplace. That somehow wearing those sort of clothes will degrade and objectify herself. That she should not have the freedom to choose what she wants to wear. If she wears a thong she no longer is worthy of calling herself a scientist.

 

 

When she wears a string bikini and thong, she'll no longer be looked at as an intelligent scientist.

 

 

ragdish wrote:

So why indeed do women like to wear sexy clothes or do raunchy acts? Could it be that they may like being looked at and desired? Even among prudes who confine sexuality within a "loving and caring" relationship would have to admit that at some point the clothes do come off and each has to try and make the other horny in order to get laid. Yes even among the prudes, a certain amount of objectification has to take place ie. during foreplay.

 

When a girl dresses raunchy and struts around the town, she ain't doing it for her boyfriend.

 

 

ragdish wrote:

Even the most staunch anti-porn feminist is very likely to masturbate to erotic mental imagery. Isn't that form of sexual fantasy also about objectification? I'd like to see if they would self-flagellate themselves after commiting such sexual heresy.

It seems to me that those who are anti-raunch are not truly concerned about the welfare of women. Indeed, they are simply clinging to unrealistic value systems which they impose on others but not on themselves ie. everyone must follow the rule except me. And it is for this reason that women are always trying to break out of the box, even the one created by feminists.

 

In order for me to be a hypocrite I would have to strut around with a skirt halfway down my ass, and push up bra with a tank top. I don't.

 

 

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Have

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Have you ever seen interviews with Victoria Secret models? Or any other airheads who seem to make money by looking seductively. But allow me to prove myself right.

Seems to me they know more about biology than the so-called smart women. The bottom line is they get what they want, while the 'smart' women don't.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

For the record, a woman can be intelligent etc.. and still degrade herself.

What the difference between a smart woman that sells her services to Microsoft and a hooker/stripper/models that sells her body to a man? Why can't they both be degrading or non-degrading? Who made you the judge?

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I was just observing that usually those who resort to sexual provocation tend to lack in other departments.

And those that use intelligence tend to lack in sexual arousal departments.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

When she wears a string bikini and thong, she'll no longer be looked at as an intelligent scientist.

But she gets what she wants. She's advertising she's exploitable for a price. If she dress up like a scientist or rich business woman, people would be looking to exploit her brain and pocketbook instead of her body.

How is exploitation of the body morally worse than exploitation of the brain? Me thinks that we're all selfish bastards looking to exploit others any way possible to get ahead in a competitive world. No one is morally superior. You only find it 'degrading' because it represents competition.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:But she gets what

EXC wrote:
But she gets what she wants. She's advertising she's exploitable for a price. If she dress up like a scientist or rich business woman, people would be looking to exploit her brain and pocketbook instead of her body.

How is exploitation of the body morally worse than exploitation of the brain? Me thinks that we're all selfish bastards looking to exploit others any way possible to get ahead in a competitive world. No one is morally superior.

Your final point gives me pause, because unlike siphanius, you present a higher dynamic to your arguments than "provide proof of your statements" (then offering some wafer-thin evidence in support of your POV, like Siph did.)

Nevertheless, you still succumb to

Quote:
You only find it 'degrading' because it represents competition.

the straw man arguement.

I wasn't aware that female sexuality was an endless competition to prove who is the most desperate/lonely/promiscuous/upfront-and-personal with whatever half of the species they are into.

Mind you, I'm a huge fan of Kinsley's. Perhaps, this isn't a question of morality as is fashionably portrayed in modern cultural discussions revolving around sex. Perhaps it is simply a question of... *GASP* responsible behavior, and philosophical preference. Maybe, maybe not?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
...

Kapkao wrote:
Riiigght... ...another defender of (cultural) tolerance takes the stand. How European...

So because she is the sole voice of dissent in this thread, she's automatically a prude, and all the guys here aren't ABOUT to pause and let it slide. Color me surprised.

1: When did how someone dresses become a culture?
2: When did Europeans corner the market on tolerance?

3: No actually, I call the Captain a Prude because the first time (that I saw) that she made this exact same argument she insisted on bitching about people calling her a prude while still insisting it was her right to call other girls sluts. And to totally rip off Lulu; "The only ones who should call others sluts are those who are prepared to be called Prudes!"
Quote:
I wasn't aware this was about dress code... I was under the impression it was more about public conduct and women objectifying themselves in public just so someone of the opposite sex might notice them... they're THAT desperate?

I guess it's a BBW thing. (Mind you, I've never cared for skinny women with fake tits, personally... but shit! That shirt might as well have said "got anal VD"?)

Personally, I generally assume that girls dress provocatively because they, um ,enjoy it? Maybe? Personally, I don't care much for the shirt either, which is why I didn't comment on it. I'm not really dealing so much with the original topic of this thread so much as a different point I want to make specifically about the Captain, so if my posts seem primarily to be made of ad-hominem attacks, that's probably why.
Quote:
Counter-supposition:Culture is easily graphed, measured, and defined along the lines of "universal rule(s)"? Riiiggghhhttt!
It must suck for someone to disagree with you and other individuals at RRS...

Aaaaannnndd, now you're agreeing with me. How did that happen? Perhaps its because, despite your love of using it yourself, you are apparently not good at recognizing sarcasm in written form.
Maybe.
And not really, I have a different point I'm making.
Quote:
What do those 4 urls prove?

Mostly that a person's intellect is generally not well represented in how they look or dress, and that evaluating someone's intellect based on how they look or dress is a silly idea and disrespectful to the complexity inherent within a person's personality.
Quote:
So... basically all you have is a bunch of name-calling, finger-pointing, and arm-flailing because... someone disagrees with you about the whole "cultural tolerance" quackery that has engulfed political left.

Actually, not so much, though it is true that the majority of my points were largely ad-hominem in nature, there's actually a very good reason for that. I'll restate my main point more clearly below in my response to the Captain.

And when did the political left get involved in this? Because I assure you, I am not on the political left.

There is just one last thing I want to ask you;
Quote:
Your final point gives me pause, because unlike siphanius, you present a higher dynamic to your arguments than "provide proof of your statements" (then offering some wafer-thin evidence in support of your POV, like Siph did.)

So, despite the core of my argument being "provide proof of your statements", that isn't "inject(ing) some reason into this thread"?

Well, I guess technically it is Empiricism, not Rationalism, but personally I've generally considered having evidence to back up a claim to be fairly important, a trait I thought I shared with the Good Captain, however that is apparently not the case, as I will now demonstrate;
-----

Captain wrote:
Have you ever seen interviews with Victoria Secret models? Or any other airheads who seem to make money by looking seductively. But allow me to prove myself right.

Minor Point: Victoria's Secret Models get interviewed? Guess the news has been slow lately...
Main Point: Congratulations, you managed to find a Pretty Retarded Girl, and I mean that in both of the ways it can be taken, though I generally don't go for blondes. Do you want a medal? Here's a Pretty Ugly Retarded Woman who Dresses Conservatively.
Now then, are these select few examples, when added to our own personal observations, enough to pronounce a universal condemnation upon the rest?

Because My Gods this is just too rich. So now, from the same Captain that whined incessantly for however many years* about RRS members lambasting religion as obviously evil because they felt they could just plainly see the effects of religion on morality, we now get this. Apparently the same Captain that endlessly asked 'Where's the statistics' whenever someone said 'look at all the evil of religion, its so obvious' now suddenly doesn't give two hoots in hell**** about statistics, because its just soooooooooooo obvious that
Captain wrote:
those who resort to sexual provoction tend to lack in other departments.

And that was why I dropped into this conversation. It was less about the actual subject, the supposed mental deficiencies of women who dress provocatively, and more your blatant hypocrisy.

So if you're wondering Kapkao, that's why most of my post was just ad-hominem attacks and asking for evidence, because I'm just pointing out that the Captain is selectively demanding evidence only when the statement disagrees with her.  This is also why the evidence I provided in favor of my opinion was 'wafer-thin'; because I wasn't actually presenting evidence in favor of my opinion, because I haven't even stated my opinion.  I am merely mocking the Captain's hypocrisy.

If you want my actual opinion on the whole provocative clothing thing, its roughly as follows: "One's style of dress is not sufficient evidence upon which to base an evaluation of one's personality, intellect, tastes, or any other aspect other than fashion sense, and to attempt to do so is a greater insult to the complexity of human character than any particular style of dress could ever be, Except This, because that's just weird."

Kapkao wrote:
Perhaps it is simply a question of... *GASP* responsible behavior, and philosophical preference. Maybe, maybe not?

Now that's got to be the craaaazziieest Thing you've ever said.

*Seriously, how many years have you been a member of this board? Didn't you even get a blog entirely devoted to this where you had tons of arguments about this with Hamby?
**Sorry, I just couldn't resist Smiling.
***I can have fun with font size too Eye-wink.
****I'm sad I couldn't find the video I wanted... poor Jasper is lost forever with no one to snark at.

One last point;
Captain wrote:
When she wears a string bikini and thong, she'll no longer be looked at as an intelligent scientist.

Well no shit. How is someone supposed to know someone is a scientist just by looking at them unless they're in a lab coat? In all honesty, even then. If I saw a random person walking around the street in a lab coat I would think two thoughts;
1: Mad Scientist on the loose.
2: Kick Ass.

Because heaven forbid that people divorce their opinions of others from their preconceptions of how people 'should' dress and actually, I don't know, approach those people and discover who they are.

Furthermore, if the problem is that other people are going to assume things about her based on how she dresses, then how the hell is this her fault or at all reflective of her as a person? Doesn't that right there say that the problem is the other people? Maybe she just finds whatever outfit she is wearing terribly comfortable.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Mostly I'm trying to stay

Mostly I'm trying to stay out of this.  But I have a couple of thoughts here.

 

Sinphanius wrote:

Personally, I generally assume that girls dress provocatively because they, um ,enjoy it? Maybe?

 

All I can tell you is why I did when I was much younger and much more interesting to look at.  I dressed slutty to watch guys' tongues hang out and then I could tell them "no".  Great fun to compare lame pick up lines with the other girls.  Hysterical.

I grew up - in both meanings of the word.

 

Sinphanius wrote:

This,

 

I don't have a pic, more's the pity.  This gal reminds me of someone who used to ride the bus with me.  We were both commuting to work, so we saw each other frequently.  Imagine - on the tallish side for a woman, softly plump but not excessively overweight, young, and all in pink and black goth.  Hard to describe - pink butterfly hair clips, black fingernail polish, pink tips to her black hair (obviously dyed black), long black dress with pink sneakers and pink striped socks.  The theme continued - purse, backpack, sweater, makeup......  I didn't speak with her beyond politeness, so I couldn't tell you anything about her.  In the city where bumper stickers say "Keep Portland Weird" she was seriously doing her bit to hold up her end of the weirdness.

  

Sinphanius wrote:

Because heaven forbid that people divorce their opinions of others from their preconceptions of how people 'should' dress and actually, I don't know, approach those people and discover who they are.

Furthermore, if the problem is that other people are going to assume things about her based on how she dresses, then how the hell is this her fault or at all reflective of her as a person? Doesn't that right there say that the problem is the other people? Maybe she just finds whatever outfit she is wearing terribly comfortable.

 

I can agree with this.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
And still, siphanius, all

And still, siphanius, all you have is nothing more than a difference of opinion. Got anything else?

I don't see myself agreeing with you on most of the big points any time soon, but wth...

Quote:
When did Europeans corner the market on tolerance?

I suggested Europeans cornered the market on tolerance? Sure.

Quote:
I'm not really dealing so much with the original topic of this thread so much as a different point I want to make specifically about the Captain, so if my posts seem primarily to be made of ad-hominem attacks, that's probably why.

Call me crazy, but it still sounds like nothing more than a simple difference of opinion...

Quote:
Well, I guess technically it is Empiricism, not Rationalism, but personally I've generally considered having evidence to back up a claim to be fairly important, a trait I thought I shared with the Good Captain, however that is apparently not the case, as I will now demonstrate;

I don't see her claiming anything of fact, but rather, stating her opinion.

You take exception to her POV; so what? It's still just her POV your taking exception to, and offered nothing to substantiate the claims you yourself are making. (Save for 4 interesting urls)

Quote:
because I haven't even stated my opinion.

Bullshit, you've stated it multiple times already... (look for yourself upthread)

Quote:
Seriously, how many years have you been a member of this board?

I had a different RRS username as "Tologa" registered in... sometime in early 2009, I think. Not sure. I've seen the exchanges here before, so... no, I'm not a stranger to some of the more incredulous exchanges/conflicts/flamewars that start here.

I think the juvenile immaturity of this thread skyrocketed when you started posting in it. Granted, I like open conflict with some of the bleeding-heart, leftist atheists (including one self-described "Ultra-leftist" whom pissing all over never gets old for me -primarily because of his complete lack of reason-based thinking, but also for other reasons.)

Then there's ZuS and B199ER, political leftists whom I've actually grown to respect (ZuS in particular). Story for a different day.

Quote:
Because heaven forbid that people divorce their opinions of others from their preconceptions of how people 'should' dress and actually, I don't know, approach those people and discover who they are.

"Heaven forbid" people behave infantile over simple disagreements.

Or have a pack mentality against other atheists over complete bullshit.

edit; claiming, even

edit2;Most of this jumbled mess of a thread revolves around Pineapple's view of women who dress like trailer trash hobag sluts. She doesn't approve, so she's automatically one of the prudes. I can't say I agree with her point-for-point, but she's going to have to do a great deal more than postulate women who dress like trash don't have much to show for in "other departments", for me to claim that she is a "prude".

You may state that it's about her own empiricism that you're attacking here, but then... you must think I was born yesterday.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
rather than quote for quote

rather than quote for quote I'll just make some points.

 

I didn't object to being called a prude [I believe this is the thread in question], what I did object to is that people automatically assumed that I lacked in the looks department and was lashing out by calling other girls sluts. Now, you'll probably call me a hypocrite because I just assumed that girls who dress like that lack in other departments. What I meant is that women will use their sexuality and basically sell themselves to get what they want. That is that they will sex up their attire so they don't have to improve themselves in other departments, ergo a girl who doesn't sell herself will be more likely to be better in other departments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
What cj said

What we call raunch today has been around for a long time. It's nothing new. Women have and always will take pleasure in looking hot for the sole purpose of teasing men. Personally, I think the fully clad Raquel is a much hotter woman for the very reason that she enjoyed flashing her body and then turning down scores of admiring men.

And even without knowing what cj looks like (and frankly I couldn't care less), I think she is sooooooo hot for the same reasons. I think Jim Morrison summed up raunch the best:

Hello, I love you
Won't you tell me your name?
Hello, I love you
Let me jump in your game

She's walking down the street
Blind to every eye she meets
Do you think you'll be the guy
To make the queen of the angels sigh?

Hello, I love you
Won't you tell me your name?
Hello, I love you
Let me jump in your game

She holds her head so high
Like a statue in the sky
Her arms are wicked, and her legs are long
When she moves my brain screams out this song

Sidewalk crouches at her feet
Like a dog that begs for something sweet
Do you hope to make her see, you fool?
Do you hope to pluck this dusky jewel?

As I tried to failingly state in my OP, that a sexy culture in the right context can be a healthy culture. Women love to get dirty out of sheer mindless fun. They get older, possibly have kids and then grandkids but deep down inside they'll always reminisce and say "I was fucking hot". What's wrong with that? If they are simply mindless sex objects for having fun then I suppose all those raunch culture critics will stop listening to the music of this "sex object":

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I didn't

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I didn't object to being called a prude 

What you object to is irrelevant, to me.  I could pretend to take the moral high ground here and suggest that I've posted what I have for some ridiculous notion of "chivalry", or that I'm a gentleman at heart, or some other tripe; but in truth, I'm none of those things.

 

What I object to, is someone being singled out and 'dogpiled' simply because... you're the sole voice of dissent, yet you are an atheist like the rest of us. From what I could take in from the thread's responses to so far, the best rebuttal that anyone could come up with amounted to nothing more than cheap labeling and hollow (unsubstantiated) declarations.

 

Call me whacky, but that didn't strike me as acceptable or even... rational.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: If they are

ragdish wrote:

 

If they are simply mindless sex objects for having fun then I suppose all those raunch culture critics will stop listening to the music of this "sex object":

 

 

He was sooooooo fine.  And thanks for the compliment. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Honestly, I don't like porn

Honestly, I don't like porn specially. I guess the professionalism turns me off, it equals routine and boredom. It looks like the actress has some guy with text tables behind the camera, so she will know when to switch from ooohs to aaahs. And the very choreography of fucking must be specially uncomfortable and unnatural, to give the camera the best angles and details. Have you ever heard of something too perfect? A little too perfect lighting, makeup, poses, panting and gasping trained by years of practice, really this all took the spirit of porn away. The sheer over-efficiency and commercialism of it makes me think of searching for some porn made by enthusiastic and creative amateurs. And if they wouldn't know they're filmed, even better Smiling

No, I don't think it degrades the respective females involved, except of the routine job that degrades people. I wonder how they feel about sex for fun or even love, when they've got it all day at work. Love is something that's not for money and what also turns people on. Yeah, porno's fine, why not, but it should be about lovers, not workers. Sorry, my feelings are not completely dead yet. I don't want the love and beauty become profanely copied like Andy Warhol's portraits.

And yes, I'm the man of the future who searches for beauty in the girl's body, (specially face) mind and feelings alike. I really regret the male dominion, which prevents so many women from being intellectually active, creative and highly educated. Intelligent beauty, what greater delight can there be? Only pleasantly complex personality, on top of that. As I'm gonna say from now on, love the girl, fuck commercialism.

The only thing that can really liberate women is gradual slowing down of economics, which will allow both men and women to have merely  part-time jobs and to share the burden of relationship, family and housekeeping equally. When majority of men goes to work and majority of women stays at home working for free, then men get most of the money and important places in society, that's not fair. For example, in music industry, the part I listen to, (about 50-100 artists) and there's just a few oases of estrogen, mainly Rena Jones and Michele Adamson, both hot as hell, thanks goodness.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:rather

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

rather than quote for quote I'll just make some points.

 

I didn't object to being called a prude [I believe this is the thread in question], what I did object to is that people automatically assumed that I lacked in the looks department and was lashing out by calling other girls sluts. Now, you'll probably call me a hypocrite because I just assumed that girls who dress like that lack in other departments. What I meant is that women will use their sexuality and basically sell themselves to get what they want. That is that they will sex up their attire so they don't have to improve themselves in other departments, ergo a girl who doesn't sell herself will be more likely to be better in other departments.

 

 

My own observation is it is the ones who were pretty growing up  - male and female - who are most likely to try to get by on looks alone to the detriment of any personality or smarts they may have.  I was at my most attractive between 18 and 23.  My school pictures are not of some pretty charming little girl but of a chubby, glasses wearing, homely child.  My face took a long time to resolve into something interesting.  I was too shy to do the personality cult so I had to go for brains.

So when I finally had guys looking at me it was intoxicating if only briefly.  I was severely burned by a couple of the handsome guys who had no incentive to ever develop a brain cell or two and had always had women chasing after them.  You learn.  My advice has always been to go for the brains and good nature, ignore looks.

Gotta admit, Cpt, if you don't have a body worth looking at no matter how you sex it up, you aren't going to get that rich old man with one foot in the grave and money to burn who is looking for arm candy and an incentive to get it up one last time.  If you can get attention with a push up bra, why not enjoy it while you can?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:   If you can get

cj wrote:

 

 

  If you can get attention with a push up bra, why not enjoy it while you can?

  Yes, for physical beauty is indeed a perishable commodity and the clock is ticking.  It makes me think of many of the truly stunning Hollywood actresses from the 30's and 40's.  Bettie Davis, Joan Crawford, Patricia Neal, etc who in their prime, were likely the inspiration for many an erotic thought,  but who outlived their looks and survived to become withered husks, for whom I would shudder to even associate a carnal motive.  Time is against all things fleshly and organic.  

  As far as the shirts with the "naughty" phrases on them all I can offer in appraisal is a mighty "ho hum" and to each his / her own. They are just too low brow even for my tastes and would as likely be seen on a guest of the Jerry Springer Show while investigating some vile paternity / love triangle topic.

   Whatever turns you on....

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:He was sooooooo

cj wrote:


He was sooooooo fine.  And thanks for the compliment. 

I don't see the compliment...

I'll take Queen over boyband The Doors any day of the week, plus... why are his ribs poking out of his ribcage??

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:why are his

Kapkao wrote:
why are his ribs poking out of his ribcage??

 

It happens to those of us with no muscle or fat on our chests...


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:I wasn't aware

Kapkao wrote:

I wasn't aware that female sexuality was an endless competition to prove who is the most desperate/lonely/promiscuous/upfront-and-personal with whatever half of the species they are into.

No. But human evolution has been an endless competition to survive by any means possible. So it's been women selling sex to get food, shelter. And some other women that are not so sexual using their intelligence to get these things. Why is one group morally superior in all this?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:He was

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

He was sooooooo fine.  And thanks for the compliment. 

I don't see the compliment...

I'll take Queen over boyband The Doors any day of the week, plus... why are his ribs poking out of his ribcage??

 

He said I was hot earlier in the post.  You take what you can get at my age.

Queen is fun, The Doors are intense.  Apples and oranges comparing them.

I didn't know Jim Morrison personally so I can't tell you if his skinniness was due to genes, diet or lifestyle.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:No. But human

EXC wrote:

No. But human evolution has been an endless competition to survive by any means possible. So it's been women selling sex to get food, shelter. And some other women that are not so sexual using their intelligence to get these things. Why is one group morally superior in all this?

Then you don't know female sexuality very well... Some women are highly exhibitionistic, and desperate to get noticed, true. Some are even highly promiscuous-yet-disease-free. Most women I have known; in person, on TV, in books, etc; however, do not advertise their sexuality to anyone willing to stare.

You also don't know paleolithic society, either.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:You also don't

EXC wrote:

You also don't know paleolithic society, either.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


dixon 103 vsit (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: According to

ragdish wrote:

 

According to Pineapple and others of similar ilk, it would be wrong for the woman in this picture to wear a string bikini or any other revealing attire outside the workplace. That somehow wearing those sort of clothes will degrade and objectify herself. That she should not have the freedom to choose what she wants to wear. If she wears a thong she no longer is worthy of calling herself a scientist.

 

 

 

 

Why the heck would anyone not find her sexy.  I'll admit if she stands up and is 200lbs it would not be sexy to me, but I LOVE a woman that knows how to wear business attire just right.  Button up shirt just tight enough and a erfect suit skirt to match.

 

Who knows maybe under the lab coat all she has is a bikini and thong!